Statutory limitation and Section 14 exclusion require due diligence and good faith; belated appeal remained time-barred.

An appeal under the Electricity Act, 2003 could not be entertained beyond the statute's outer limitation period, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act could not be used to extend that limit. Section 14 may still apply in an appropriate case, but only where the appellant proves due diligence and good faith in prosecuting another civil proceeding. Here, the belated review petition, the delay in filing the appeal after withdrawal, and the overall conduct did not establish those requirements, and the court vacation period did not assist. The delay of 161 days was therefore not condonable, and the appeal failed on limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appeal filed under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003 could be entertained beyond the maximum period of limitation prescribed therein and whether the delay could be excluded by applying the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: Section 125 prescribes a 60-day period for filing an appeal to the Supreme Court, with a further condonable period not exceeding 60 days. Beyond that outer limit, Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be invoked to enlarge limitation. The Court held that Section 14 can apply in a proper case even where Section 5 is excluded, but only if the party shows both due diligence and good faith while prosecuting another civil proceeding. On the facts, the review petition itself was filed belatedly, the appeal was not filed promptly after withdrawal of the review petition, and the conduct did not establish due diligence or good faith. The time during court vacation also did not assist the appellant.

Conclusion: The delay of 161 days could not be condoned and the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not available. The application for condonation of delay was rightly rejected and the appeal failed on limitation.

---